Sounds about right Bill … We have played a number of games where the rules varied on how this was handled.
The army the units are from will react differently based on nationality, morale, etc. E.g. The French v. the Germans France 1940.
Or units were rated as based on Veteran, Green or Trained status. Each status rating would designate how the units would react to e.g. being out of command, high losses, etc. So the Vet troops would react better than the Green troops.
Either way you may have to make some sort of Charts, etc. Of course, just rating units as Vet, Green, Trained is easier and still provides a modicum of reality as well as playability, etc. E.g. The DAK vs the Allies in 1941, etc.
The way the Russians are running Infantry ops, is closer to WWI than modern warfare. 2 man "Assault teams" probably have more to do with a shortage of troops, than anything else. Or may be part of a larger unit.
8 man Assault units are more like the size of an understrength Squad. But it still seems they are not fighting the last war but the one before that.
Regardless it appears in most case the quality of Russian Infantry is pretty low. Having minimal training plus high losses E.g. they'd be rated as Green for gaming purposes.
What could a lone 2 man Assault Teams do but provide suppressive fires with an MG, etc. For a larger or even another 2 man team. However, 2 man teams obviously get attrited fairly quickly. They should be part of a larger unit, e.g. an 8 man team/unit.
As we know MOUT generally costs units a lot of losses by its very nature. And traditionally Assault Tms packs more grenades, satchel charges, demolition charges, etc. Similar happens when clearing strong points, trenches, etc. A lot of close combat, room to room, building to building, bunker to bunker, etc.